Military Buffs I need your help.

[Geckomlis]

Originally posted by Cyrien:
Please let us all know so we can get in on the Truth, as well.

The only Truth he has to share (yet again) is that he does not like the United States very much.

[Puke]

Originally posted by geckomlis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cyrien:
Please let us all know so we can get in on the Truth, as well.

The only Truth he has to share (yet again) is that he does not like the United States very much.

---

Flame me, moderate me down, ignore me, but...

sorry, cant resist:

"Vae Victis."

I now return you to your regularly scheduled pissing contest. I mean, discussion of 'historical' events.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Hmm . . . why would calling someone a "flag waver" be considered inflammatory!!?? I would think that Atrocities et. al. would be proud of being a flag waver.

Atrocities, however, did call me a "revisionist" his tone to me sounded inflammatory he certainly didn't mean it as a complement.

You used the term "flag waver" in a negative context, implying that flag wavers do not think and just accept whatever their government tells them. Also, there is the implication that patriots can't be right. You may not have meant this, but this is how it has come across. There is at least one other person who saw this (or something like it) in your post, so I am not just making it up. Both of your Posts in this thread were inflammatory, actually (the first to a lesser degree than the second). They dismiss the person, whereas AT's post was dismissing the idea... His post could also be considered inflammatory, but of a different nature.

[Atrocities]

Oleg Please read your PM's

Originally posted by rextorres:
Hmm . . . why would calling someone a "flag waver" be considered inflammatory!!?? I would think that Atrocities et. al. would be proud of being a flag waver.

Atrocities, however, did call me a "revisionist" his tone to me sounded inflammatory he certainly didn't mean it as a complement.

Rextorres, I did not call you a revisionist. I think you should reread what I did say. I did not mean to offend you. I don't know you and I had no way of knowing that you would take my post as a personal attack. It certainly was not intended as such. But in retrospect, I can see your point, and I do apologize for it. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings.

We should not judge events of our past nor pass judgement on those who participated in those events because most of us were not there to witness or participate in them first hand.

[ December 12, 2003, 07:34: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[AssHat]

Just saw on tv the opening of the new Air & Space museum near D.C. A couple of veterans near the Enola Gay exhibit recounted how the bombs saved their lives and the lives of every man (U.S. and Japanese) who would have died in Operation Olympic.

[Wardad]

The incendiary firestorms from the 300 and 1000 plane raids over Japans cities were far more devastating then the A bombs.

The A bombs could be used on fortifications and prepared defenses in depth. This may have killed some Japanese hopes of stopping a landing long enough for a typhon to come along and destroy our fleets.

[oleg]

My apologies to Atrocities and others.

I made several Posts here inflamantory in nature.
I did not mean it. I have a deep respect to Will and do not want to offend anybody. Sorry.

[primitive]

A Histoy lesson. Well worth 5 minutes

As always when reading history; "facts" are "events of high probability" and "conclusions" are "interpretations".

These are my interpretations of the events. Feel free to interpret differntly:

* The bombs did nothing to help the ending of the war
* The first bomb was dropped for testing, to justify the budget for the Manhattan project and to intimidate the Soviets.
* The second bomb was just plain murder. If it had been dropped on the original target, it may have been justifiable as testing of a new type of target.

But as Rex already pointed out. If the (first) bomb hadn't been dropped, its very doubtfull we would have made it through Korea and the cold war without the bomb beeing dropped somewhere else.

[AssHat]

I find it shocking to see how many people believe with perfect hindsight that the U.S. was wrong to deploy atomic weapons against the empire of Japan.

The decision was made in the context of a brutal war of aggression waged by samurai warriors equipped with western arms. They neither gave nor expected quarter during their decade long murder spree throughout the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The military junta went against Yamamoto's advice not to provoke the U.S. and they reaped the whirlwind.

Attack the U.S. directly in a war that threatens U.S. survival and you will end up like the Confederate States of America, Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan....smokin' friggin' ruins. The righteous might of free men bestirred is a power to behold.

That said, there is no more magnanimous victor than the United States and any country rehabilitated by U.S. force of arms is sure to benefit in the long run.

[rextorres]

I don't know if the US was wrong or not in dropping the bomb (frankly the fire bombings sound more horrific based on accounts I've read) - but a lot of people - even a couple on this forum have implied that the bombs were dropped for some altruistic reasons.

In reality the US was fire bombing civilians already and dropped the bomb on a civilian target, probably dropped the bomb out of revenge (as your posting and some others on the board highlights), for strategic leverage after the war, and based on what some Japanese documents suggest could have gotten a surrender without the need to drop the bombs.

Some people feel uncomfortable with this "revisionist" history because it doesn't show the US in the best light and in today's Jingoistic climate if your not 100% pro US your unpatriotic . . . I guess if it lets them sleep better at night good for them.

[ December 13, 2003, 20:22: Message edited by: rextorres ]